NVIDIA Quadro P520 Max-Q

Power and Cooling — TDP, PSU recommendation, connector requirements

The NVIDIA Quadro P520 Max-Q is an exceptionally power-efficient mobile workstation GPU, with a TDP of just 18 W. This low thermal envelope is a direct consequence of its Pascal architecture being built on a 14 nm process from Samsung, which allows the GP108 chip—containing 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die—to operate with minimal heat generation. The transistor density works out to 24.3 million transistors per square millimeter, a figure that underscores how tightly packed this small chip is.

For power delivery, the card requires no external power connectors. It draws all its power from the PCIe 3.0 x16 slot itself, which simplifies integration into thin-and-light laptops and mobile workstations. Because of the minimal power draw, the data does not include a suggested PSU rating, and none is needed for a system using this GPU—the host laptop’s existing power delivery is sufficient. The lack of a slot width specification and the "Portable Device Dependent" display output field further confirm that this is a soldered-down mobile part, not a discrete add-in card.

The clock behavior is modest but consistent with the power target. The base clock is 1303 MHz, boosting to 1493 MHz under load. Memory runs at 1375 MHz, which translates to 5.5 Gbps effective for the GDDR5 VRAM. These figures are not headline-grabbing, but they are sustainable within an 18 W envelope, making this GPU suitable for passively cooled or lightly cooled chassis designs. The production status is end-of-life, and the release date is May 22, 2019, placing it in the late-Pascal era. Its predecessor was the Quadro Maxwell-M, and its successor is the Quadro Turing-M, which gives context for its feature set and performance tier.

Ray Tracing and Feature Set — RT/tensor cores, API support from facts

The Quadro P520 Max-Q does not include dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The FACT PACK lists both as null, meaning the hardware lacks the specialized accelerators found in later Turing and Ampere parts. This is consistent with its Pascal architecture, which predates NVIDIA’s RTX push. Consequently, any ray-traced workloads would run on the general-purpose shading units, with all 384 of them handling the computation in a brute-force manner. There is no hardware-accelerated DLSS or AI denoising available here.

The API support is more modern than the architecture might suggest. DirectX 12 is supported at feature level 12_1, which includes conservative rasterization and rasterizer-ordered views but not the mesh shaders or variable-rate shading found in DX12 Ultimate. OpenGL 4.6 is fully supported, and Vulkan 1.4 is listed, which is a surprisingly recent version for a 2019 Pascal part. This Vulkan support means the GPU can run modern Vulkan titles, though performance will be limited by the underlying hardware capabilities.

The pixel rate is 23.89 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 35.83 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance is 1,146.6 GFLOPS for FP32, while FP16 runs at 17.92 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio—meaning FP16 throughput is drastically reduced, so half-precision compute is not a practical acceleration path. The absence of RT and tensor cores means this is purely a rasterization and compute GPU, with no ray tracing or AI inference acceleration. Benchmark results indicate that its overall percentile rank is 50, placing it exactly at the median of all GPUs tracked in the database.

Benchmark Performance — analyze scores vs rivals with exact % deltas

The FACT PACK lists no benchmark scores and no nearest rivals for the Quadro P520 Max-Q, and the average benchmark score is 0. The percentile vs all GPUs is 50, which suggests it sits in the middle of the performance distribution—but without actual score data or deltas, a quantitative comparison against specific competitors is impossible from the provided facts. The data simply does not include any rival names, scores, or deltaPct values to analyze.

What can be said is that the FP32 throughput of 1,146.6 GFLOPS, combined with the 44.00 GB/s memory bandwidth, positions this GPU for light to moderate graphics workloads. The 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs form a small but balanced configuration. The texture rate of 35.83 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 23.89 GPixel/s are consistent with a 1080p-class entry-level mobile GPU. In the absence of direct benchmark deltas, the percentile rank of 50 implies that half of all GPUs in the database are faster and half are slower, which is a reasonable expectation for a low-power mobile part from 2019.

The FP16 performance is severely limited at 17.92 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), so any workload relying on half-precision will see negligible acceleration. The FP32 figure is the primary compute metric. For gaming, the 23.89 GPixel/s fill rate suggests it can handle older or less demanding titles at lower settings, but modern AAA games at high resolutions would likely exceed its capabilities. Without rival scores, the analysis must rely on these raw throughput numbers and the percentile placement.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs, each answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: Does the Quadro P520 Max-Q support hardware ray tracing?

A: No. The FACT PACK lists both RT cores and tensor cores as null, meaning the Pascal-based GPU has no dedicated ray tracing or AI acceleration hardware.

Q: What is the power consumption of this GPU?

A: The TDP is 18 W, and it requires no external power connectors—it draws power solely from the PCIe 3.0 x16 slot.

Q: What is the memory configuration?

A: The GPU has 4 GB of GDDR5 VRAM on a 64-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 44.00 GB/s. The memory clock is 1375 MHz, effective at 5.5 Gbps.

Q: What APIs does it support?

A: It supports DirectX 12 (feature level 12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the production status and release timeline?

A: The production status is end-of-life, and the release date was May 22, 2019. Its predecessor was the Quadro Maxwell-M, and its successor is the Quadro Turing-M.

Q: How many shading units does it have?

A: It has 384 shading units, along with 24 texture mapping units and 16 ROPs. FP32 performance is 1,146.6 GFLOPS.

Who Should Consider It — resolution/settings-based recommendations grounded in the scores

Given the FP32 throughput of 1,146.6 GFLOPS and the 23.89 GPixel/s pixel rate, this GPU is best suited for 1080p resolution with conservative settings. The 44.00 GB/s memory bandwidth is a limiting factor for high-resolution textures, so users should expect to lower texture quality in modern games. The 4 GB VRAM capacity is adequate for 1080p but will be strained at 1440p or higher, especially with high-detail assets.

The percentile rank of 50 indicates it is an average performer relative to all GPUs, which means it is not a high-end part. For workstation use, the Pascal architecture and 384 CUDA cores can handle light CAD or 2D design workloads, but complex 3D rendering or video editing would be slow. The 18 W TDP makes it ideal for ultra-thin laptops where battery life and thermals take priority over raw performance. Users targeting 720p or older games at medium settings will find it acceptable, while those expecting 1440p high-refresh gaming should look elsewhere.

The lack of RT cores means ray-traced effects are not feasible, so users should disable such features in games. The FP16 performance at 17.92 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio) rules out any compute tasks relying on half-precision. This is a GPU for light productivity, web browsing, and modest gaming—not for enthusiasts or professionals requiring high-end compute. The 5.5 Gbps effective memory speed is modest, but the 64-bit bus limits total bandwidth to 44.00 GB/s, which is the primary bottleneck for memory-intensive workloads.

Memory Subsystem — VRAM size/type, bus width, bandwidth and what it means for high resolutions

The memory subsystem is one of the most constrained aspects of the Quadro P520 Max-Q. It features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, which is half the bus width of many desktop parts from the same era. The memory clock is 1375 MHz, translating to 5.5 Gbps effective, and the resulting bandwidth is 44.00 GB/s. This is a low figure by modern standards—many entry-level desktop GPUs exceed 100 GB/s.

For high resolutions, this bandwidth is a significant limitation. At 1440p, the pixel throughput demand increases, and the 44.00 GB/s pipe will struggle to feed the shading units with texture data and frame buffer writes. The 4 GB capacity is also a concern; modern games at 1440p with high textures can easily exceed 4 GB of VRAM usage, leading to stuttering or texture pop-in. At 1080p, the capacity is adequate, but the bandwidth still caps performance in scenes with heavy post-processing or high-resolution shadows.

The pixel rate of 23.89 GPixel/s further reinforces this constraint—it is sufficient for 1080p at moderate frame rates but not for 4K. The texture rate of 35.83 GTexel/s means texture-heavy scenes will be limited by how quickly the GPU can sample and filter textures, which depends on the available bandwidth. In summary, the memory subsystem is the primary bottleneck for this GPU, and users should treat 1080p as the practical maximum resolution for gaming, with lower settings recommended for texture quality.

How It Compares — position vs each nearest rival, one short paragraph per rival

The FACT PACK lists no nearest rivals, no scores, and no deltaPct values for the Quadro P520 Max-Q. Therefore, a direct comparison against specific competing GPUs is not possible from the provided data. The percentile rank of 50 indicates it sits at the median of all GPUs in the database, but without named rivals, the analysis cannot quantify how much faster or slower it is relative to any particular product.

What can be inferred from the architecture is that it is a Pascal-generation part, and its successor is the Quadro Turing-M, which would offer newer features like ray tracing (if applicable) and possibly higher performance. Its predecessor, the Quadro Maxwell-M, would be slower based on generational improvements. But without explicit benchmark numbers or deltaPct values, any numerical comparison would be speculation. The data simply does not include the necessary fields to perform a rival-by-rival analysis. As such, the only positional statement that can be made is that the GPU ranks at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, meaning an equal number of GPUs are above and below it in terms of performance.